Roaring Meg of Mt. Difficulty wine

Roaring Meg is what may be called a "young vine, second label" of Mt. Difficulty where grapes are out-sourced from growers throughout Central Otago.

As I recently discussed with Ian Hoare (who was underwhelmed with the Pinots of NZ in general and Central Otago in particular), NZ *may* eventually lead the world in producing the New World style of PN once the vines get a decade or so age, and who knows what may transpire in a couple of hundred years when we can draw on centuries of experience as they have in Burgundy.

Notwithstanding, there has been a lot of Pinot Noir planted in NZ over the past 5 years or so - it will be very interesting to see if NZ does produce a red wine to mirror the success of Sauvignon Blanc.

I don't compare the NZ Pinot to a Burg...but it compares nicely to a California or Oregon Pinot and prices well.

Burgs are different to me. They have an entirely different level of complexity.

So sorry.

Salut/Hi Richard Neidich,

le/on Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:56:04 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

I can't say that I agree 100%. At their very best, I've found some (a few, admittedly) Oregon and Califunny PNs comparable in complexity and interest to all but the very best (and most expensive) Burgundies. For example, Domaine Drouhin's top PN was a delight, and certainly better than most Burgundies (which I've frequently castigated for not being worthy of their name). Williams Selyem, while being profoundly excentric is vastly better (and more expensive) than most Burgs. So were the Goldeneye wines from Anderson Valley, IMO.

Again, I've said this before, but it bears repeating, I think. I'd estimate the proportion of uninteresting wine to good wine world wide as being around

5 or 10 to one. 80 to 90% of wines made world wide are without much interest in other words. I'm NOT saying they're bad, just uninteresting. And of the areas I've visited in the world and areas I know reasonably well, I'd guesstimate the proportion doesn't very too much.

What fires me up in Burgundy particularly, is that it's a tiny area - compared with other major wine areas in France - with a small production. The area REALLY suits the Pinot Noir well, and with care and respect almost ALL the wine made there could be interesting. So for carelessness and greed and I don't know what else, these winemakers are - in my opinion - betraying the heritage that they've got.

Of the NZ Pinot Noirs that I tasted while in Central Otago, there wasn't one which I'd class in that league. As Andrew so justly said, it's hardly suprising, as most of the vines have only been in the ground 4 years! "Old vines" in Central Otago speak are vines that have been there 10 years. In Burgundy, if I'm not mistaken, a village level wine (Chassagne-Montrachet) for example, a wine can't GET even that relatively lowly appellation before the vine's been there 7 years. So I'd not really criticise the winemakers for their wine. I WOULD criticise journalists and publicists for puffing the wine WAY beyond its merits.

"Dick Neidich wrote.....

While "Ian Hoare" replied (snipped a little for brevity!):-

As I explained to Ian, my experience in Burgundy has been limited mainly to the Joseph Drouhin wines obtainable here in NZ (with a bit of hunting) - and then only to the lower/mid range; and certainly not with any age.

However, in the space of two weeks I have been able to make a telling comparison.

Whilst dining with Ian & Jacquie, to accompany the Coq au vin, Ian served a

1989 Nuits 1er Cru " Les St Georges " from Henri Gouges - here was a beautiful wine with bouquet rather than aroma; a gorgeously elegant wine with nuances of savouriness and hints of spice which you *discovered*.

In front of me now is a Villa Maria Single Vineyard Taylors Pass Pinot Noir

2003 - a very highly regarded Marlborough PN. I swear that the winemaker thought he was making a blockbuster Australian Shiraz - it is a deep, brooding wine (over-extracted??) which assaults the senses; sure, smoky vanillin from the oak; ripe cherries in abundance; enough acid to suggest that this *might* age - but in no way could you use the words "elegant" or "finesse" when describing this one.

I certainly hope that this is *not* the future direction of NZ Pinot Noir.

Beautiful wine Andrew. Glad you enjoyed the trip and come back anytime.

Cheers

Mike

I'm no expert, but in a good year (and with PN, vintage really really matters), Jane Hunter made a good PN. Sadly, like the French, in a good year, the price went up, and did not come down in a bad years!

Who in this forum has had the opportunity to try a Domaine Drouhin PN? This is an Oregon winery started by the same family. I believe a daughter of one of the principals of JD is winemaker. I'm not pushing this wine, although it's considered one of Oregon's best. It would provide an excellent opportunity to compare Burgundian and Oregon PN's.

Vino After a long absence

Vino wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

It is on my list of things to drink when someone else is buying!

welcome back!

I've tried the DDO PN in 3 or 4 vintages,and generally liked. I think it's less a question of better/worse than the Drouhin Burgs in same price range ($25-30) than different. I'd probably prefer the '01 Drouhin Chambolle to the '01 DDO, but that's more a question of my tastes than quality.

Once you get above $45 I'd personally give the edge to a well-chosen Burgundy than any Oregon wine I've tasted.

Of course, all of our opinions are mostly based on the limited samples of what we find available. My opinions of Burgundy are probably more positive than Ian's because:

1) though I've had some that were hand-carried from cellar door, most Burgs I've tasted come through some pretty quality minded importers. 2)then, 99% of the Burgs I buy come from stores with long history of good selectivity with Burgundy (and other wines). Random samples from supermarkets or Joe's Liquor (and Wine) Emporium would fare worse. 3) lastly, I buy by producer - either ones I've liked, or ones recommended by folks I trust. So I don't find Burgundy particularly problematic. If I tasted randomly in Burgundy my views might well change. What's available in the Dordogne is different. And what was available in London years ago, too. That's not meant as a dig at Ian, just pointing out what he has tasted as typical Burgundy and what I have are differnet. That said, I've had some seriously bad wines - including Grand Crus- from crappy negociants, and a few bad growers.

I got that same email, Larry. They always seem to price their "cult" CA wines very high (did you see that Marcassin's chards are also selling for $349?). Ironically, you can get the '70 LLC from them for a very reasonable price. To each their own...

Mark Lipton

I had the opportunity to try a 1999 Marcassin Blue Slide Ridge Pinot Noir and while it was nice I didn't like it as much as some of Martinelli's pinot noirs.

My experience is that while there are some wonderful red Burgundies, it's hit or miss even if you're spending $100 a bottle. For $40-$60 a bottle Martinelli has some fabulous pinots and there are a few other California pinots that are consistently good and quite a number of nice Oregon pinots, all for less than you'd pay to have something from Burgundy.

Shaun Eli

Brain Champagne: Clever Comedy for the Smarter Audience (sm)

Shaun, You echo a common sentiment, but it's actually quite possible to find value and reliability in Burgundy, too. Speaking as one who came late to Bourgogne appreciation, I can tell you that for all of their insistence on terroir, it's the vintner's identity that is the biggest guarantor of quality. However, from your description of your CA Pinot preferences, I think it unlikely that you'll find Burgundy quite your cup of tea -- Burgundy to me is about finesse and perfume rather than power and fruit (although there are plenty of powerful, fruity Burgundies, too).

Mark Lipton

No Dick, bicycle petals!!!!!

Rose Petals is what I think of on the nose of Burgs...not perfume...roses petals.

It's obvious that you like a different style of burg them I.

Shaun, I understand your point. But two points:

1) as Mark L points out, we all have our palate/style preferences, and so some folks prefer California while others prefer Burgundy. And more power to all of us. 2) that being said, it's not quite an equal comparison to contrast "Burgundy" with "a few California pinots". As Mark Lipton (again) noted, in Burgundy most fans believe that the 3 most important things are "producer, producer, and producer" No one contests the fact there is (expensive) crap produced in Burgundy. But I can buy M. Lafarge, d'Angerville, de Courcel, Comte Armand, de Montille, Roumier, Mugnier, D. Bachelet, R. Chevillon with more confidence than any CA producer (for MY tastes).